Chocolate or Strawberry? This Guy Can Tell A Story.

[andymays]

Chocolate or Strawberry? | Bill Christine's Horse Racing Column | Horse Racing - HorseRaceInsider.com

http://www.horseraceinsider.com/lines-in-the-sand/comments/09122010-chocolate-or-strawberry/#comments

Excerpt:

This is about a conversation some five years ago, around the time racing officials in California had just begun testing for milkshakes. One recipe I found for milkshakes was three parts sodium citrate, two parts sodium bicarbonate, two parts calcium carbonate and one part potassium citrate. They'd put whip cream and a cherry on top, only that might jam up the tubing by which the performance-enhancing concoction is sent into a horse's body. To my knowledge, Julia Child never whipped up one of these confections on her TV show.

http://www.horseraceinsider.com/lines-in-the-sand/comments/09122010-chocolate-or-strawberry/#comments

[Turkoman]

Chocolate or Strawberry? | Bill Christine's Horse Racing Column | Horse Racing - HorseRaceInsider.com

http://www.horseraceinsider.com/lines-in-the-sand/comments/09122010-chocolate-or-strawberry/#comments

Excerpt:

This is about a conversation some five years ago, around the time racing officials in California had just begun testing for milkshakes. One recipe I found for milkshakes was three parts sodium citrate, two parts sodium bicarbonate, two parts calcium carbonate and one part potassium citrate. They'd put whip cream and a cherry on top, only that might jam up the tubing by which the performance-enhancing concoction is sent into a horse's body. To my knowledge, Julia Child never whipped up one of these confections on her TV show.

http://www.horseraceinsider.com/lines-in-the-sand/comments/09122010-chocolate-or-strawberry/#comments

Mr O'neill also claims that the game is on the upswing? Is he talking about horse racing in general, or about the "Milkshake Game?" :D

Also, the purse value of a race shouldn't give him the green light to cheat. A violation is still a violation.

Turkoman

[andymays]

Mr O'neill also claims that the game is on the upswing? Is he talking about horse racing in general, or about the "Milkshake Game?" :D

Also, the purse value of a race shouldn't give him the green light to cheat. A violation is still a violation.

Turkoman


What's hard to understand is why none of the winners he had as leading trainer tested positive but one of the losers did. :confused:

[Turkoman]

Yeah, I know. But the article says his horses were always very close to the limit.

[thaskalos]

It is interesting to see that Mr. O'Neil is in favor of having these "minor" infractions, dealt with...far away from the scrutiny of the betting public...for fear that reports like these would undermine the "integrity" of this game.

It shows how much respect some trainers have for the much maligned horseplayer.

[DeanT]

What's hard to understand is why none of the winners he had as leading trainer tested positive but one of the losers did. :confused:

That has nothing to do with it, as Christine states. What shake trainers do (not that Doug is doing it, I do not know, but what they do) is shake and test the MMols, to see how much they can get away with - 2 ounces, 3 ounces, whatever. Then they do it with every horse. If a horse happens to come 8th, so what. It is part of the program.

There was a neat study done in Australia a few years ago. They published mmols of tested horses over years on a website. You could sort it by trainer. What you found was a trainer would constantly test between 33 and 34 - with every horse. Other trainers would test between 28 and 30 - with every horse. When a horse changed barns, the horse with trainer A who had a 29 reading, would move to the other guy and have a 34 reading - overnight.

It's not hard to figure this stuff for authorities. They tend to know what is going on with trainers, and whether they are shakers or not. The only time they are caught is when they make a mistake, or their horse reacts differently. It is what happens when you are pushing the envelope.

[andymays]

That has nothing to do with it, as Christine states. What shake trainers do (not that Doug is doing it, I do not know, but what they do) is shake and test the MMols, to see how much they can get away with - 2 ounces, 3 ounces, whatever. Then they do it with every horse. If a horse happens to come 8th, so what. It is part of the program.

There was a neat study done in Australia a few years ago. They published mmols of tested horses over years on a website. You could sort it by trainer. What you found was a trainer would constantly test between 33 and 34 - with every horse. Other trainers would test between 28 and 30 - with every horse. When a horse changed barns, the horse with trainer A who had a 29 reading, would move to the other guy and have a 34 reading - overnight.

It's not hard to figure this stuff for authorities. They tend to know what is going on with trainers, and whether they are shakers or not.


A big problem in California is Rick Arthur (equine medical director for the CHRB). In my opinion he is very political and dishonest. Many other people believe that as well particularly in his advocacy for synthetic surfaces. So yes, O'Neill needs to straighten up or go away but maybe they need a new equine medical director as well.

[DeanT]

A big problem in California is Rick Arthur (equine medical director for the CHRB). In my opinion he is very political and dishonest. Many other people believe that as well. So yes, O'Neill needs to straighten up or go away but maybe they need a new equine medical director as well.

What does that have to do with it?

The average horse is 30 mmols. ONeill's horse's four times tested over 4 standard deviations of the mean, which is bad. It's not Rick Arthur's fault. Studies and scientists set the readings through data, and Rick Arthur has nothing to do with them.

[andymays]

What does that have to do with it?

The average horse is 30 mmols. ONeill's four times tested over 4 standard deviations of the mean, which is bad. It's not Rick Arthur's fault. Studies and scientists set the readings through data, and Rick Arthur has nothing to do with it.

As far as I'm concerned you can hang him as high as you want. It's fine with me. I'm just adding a little side story about what some trainers think about Rick Arthur.

California has a history of going after some Trainers and not others.

[affirmedny]

He was/is aware of who's experimenting with getting as close to the limit as they can without going over:



"It has simmered down," said Rick Arthur, who heads the TCO2 testing review committee. "But a small number of trainers continue to see how close they can get to the limit (of 37 millimoles)."

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050824/news_milkshaking.html

[DeanT]

He was/is aware of who's experimenting with getting as close to the limit as they can without going over:



"It has simmered down," said Rick Arthur, who heads the TCO2 testing review committee. "But a small number of trainers continue to see how close they can get to the limit (of 37 millimoles)."

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050824/news_milkshaking.html

It's just the way it is, isnt it?

As long as you are running for money, there will be people looking for an edge.

Just like Ben Johnson, testing over and over again clean, he made a mistake and tested positive. They gave him a many year ban - in effect a lifetime ban.

It is what you do with it when you catch them I guess. 15 days and a $1000 fine, or do like some other jurisdictions and make the second or third positive a year or two.